As far as your tshirt comment goes, what makes things like that "fashionable" by some people's standards is the fact that it attracts attention especially with all the 10 year old's friends who will want one too when the first person in their clique gets one. They will each tell their parents "Bobby has one so why can't I have one?" and of course if his parents are real parents they will say "because we're your parents and we say no". "Fashionable" sometimes equals "popular", "attention-grabbing", or "rebellious" to teenagers, hence the tshirt and for those parents who buy it for their children they don't complain about the sale of the shirt because they are liberal enough to think it is okay for their child. For those parents who don't buy it they wouldn't go into the store to begin with and therefore probably never end up knowing what the store is up to to even complain about the situation.
it takes an artist to create an initial set of code (both CLI and GUI) to make an application but it then takes an engineer to improve on it and make it perform as best as it can (both CLI and GUI).
Not all patches can be rolled back. Now whether the patches required to fix holes exploited by Sasser is something I don't know off hand but it's a possibility now and in the future.
The topics you list are things that require certain questions to be asked that most people don't want to think about because they are too engrossed in the ends and not enough in the means. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. A lot of people are willing to pay the price but many are asking should we pay the price.
I'd be happy to pay the initial cost to prove to people that the topics you list are either a waste of time (space exploration) and/or not ethically sound (cloning) as long as after the point has been made that they give up and not say "but if we have more time we can enhance our methods" or whatever the excuse may be. Scientists are too often caught up in the fantasy world they could create by some of these technologies and either don't care, don't worry, or don't even think about the repercussions. The means don't necessarily justify the end.
We've already violated the miracle of life and we want to do it even more by playing God by cloning things. We want to find life on other planets but we need to worry about the life on this planet first and not waste time and money on something that from my point of view doesn't exist. As far as quantum computing goes I think as with any technology we need to be careful of its power but I don't know of any ethical issues with it.
Doesn't a patent just mean that if someone else wants to implement it that they just have to pay a royalty? If the idea has already been created/developed and turned into a marketable product then hasn't the innovation for that idea come full circle so why would it matter that someone else can't do it? It's already been done by the time the 2nd person wants to do it. The only thing that doesn't happen is the 2nd person getting money for his idea. Don't we already argue that it isn't innovation anymore when a 2nd person wants to do something that has already been done (Microsoft)?
It's interesting how the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any. But let me be the first to say that the pro-evolutionists are obviously prejudiced against anything that might fly in the face of their grand ape-to-human theory. Do they care they are prejudiced and call anyone who isn't like them a crackpot? I doubt it because they think that they are never wrong so from their point of view they are perfect and nothing will tarnish that.
When they find the big power cord coming out of the sun, who'll be laughing then, huh?
What would be even better is if we followed the power cord for millions of light-years and came to the end and found out that it *wasn't even plugged in*.
That is of course a listing of wars (not battles or conflicts) since the UN's inception. Doing research on previous wars for every 60year period prior to the UN would take a long time. As a shortcut you can read http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041305. html/
There have been more wars since the UN's inception than in any other period in history of similar length. Maybe they have "prevented" WW3 but they don't seem to have been capable of preventing other wars. I guess as long as it accomplishes the only goal it had then it must be the greatest organization Man has ever created despite all the other wars it hasn't been able to prevent.
If the technical merit were really there (many of the supposed IPv6 improvements have been backported to v4), my guess is a specific mandate wouldn't be necessary. Business would take care of it.
While we know that IPv6 technologies are deployed throughout the government we do not know specifically which ones, how many there are, or precisely where they are located..
Just because he recited the numbers one by one doesn't mean he memorized them one by one. People memorize patterns which is why it is easy to tell someone a phone number and pause after the 3rd and 5th numbers than to say 8001627111 all at once. He probably memorized various patterns in the value of pi and used those patterns to partly recite the individual numbers. You don't memorize 500 pages of poems character by character but word by word and since you know the format of the word you know the order of the components that make up the word.
Actually, evolution didn't create anything due to what exists being too complicated and having too many "chicken and egg" problems due to so many dependencies existing for evolution to have created everything. You can't have some of the components you listed and not others and still have something useful. It all has to be there and evolution couldn't have produced them all separately and then brought them all together to make something useful. Not to mention the odds of getting the right chemicals in the right proporations and storing the programming for all that and keeping it useable until all the other components were available are just beyong astronomical.
A deity capable of creating an entire universe is obviously capable of deceiving you.
He has the power but no motive to deceive. On the other hand, we have some humans who think all humans came from apes who have a very strong motive for deceiving the general population in thinking that is true. Would you rather be deceived by a human who has natural biases and prejudices or by God who has no reason to deceive you to begin with? I know you will choose a human for the sheer fact you don't acknowledge God even exists but that just shows your ignorance for choosing something that you know is not right but choosing it anyway.
The show Mythbusters on DIscovery disproved this myth and showed that there really is an equal distribution between the toast landing butter side up as opposed to down. They did however figure out that by pushing on the toast when spreading the butter caused a cupped surface on the toast which could affect how it rotates in the air.
I hate to tell you this but the Christian religion existed in this country long before you or I were even here so why don't you get the fuck out since you are taking away what was already here and what everyone had no issues with. I'm not building anything because it already existed. Get your facts straight. The US was a better place when religion was allowed in schools and in the gov't and those who chose not to participate were not persecuted but the tables have turned around so much now that freedom of religion means that if you have a religion you are arrested or shutup (not much freedom in that).
You are damn right we are moving backwards. 100 years ago anyone and everyone could say "God" and "Jesus" in a school and practice their religion in public and now that gets you arrested and/or the ACLU on your ass. Today those same ideas are only allowed to be spoken of using the phrase "intelligent design" otherwise you are called crazy by the liberals who instead think we came from apes (who is calling who crazy again?) 100 years ago we didn't have homosexuality celebrated in the media and abortions were taboo(I did not say non-existent). Today we're not discussing how the dinosaurs attacked Noah's Ark. Only the one guy who wrote that book is discussing it so don't exaggerate so much that you look like an idiot spouting nonsense (and yes, it's too late for that). Why do I feel we're going backwards?
Your alternative theory will never make it to the textbooks due to the school systems considering it based on religion (demons->Satan). Oh wait, I should say, it's based on the Christian religion otherwise it would have been in a long time ago.
Why have we eschewed Gaming Goodness(TM) for violence and call it fun?
For the same reason that most TV shows nowadays include countless sexual connotations, take the name of God in vain countless times, and cartoon shows are able to go even further than the shows with real people in them because it's all in the name of "comedy". Point being that producers of media think they know what the majority want but they are way off base.
The excuse the media producers have is that you can always turn the channel or use lockout techniques http://controlyourtv.org/ so they can rationalize that it is quite all right to produce crap and broadcast it on national television. The ratings on TV, movie, and video games don't mean the same thing anymore either as a PG-13 movie can now contain nudity. It almost makes me wonder what is supposed to be in a rated R movie. I'm sure video games are changing too.
At work when I implemented maps using ESRI software, I specifically made limitations for how far out a user could zoom so that crazy things like this didn't happen. I implemented part of it in the xml file that ArcIMS used and another guy (developer) actually did the work in the javascript of the webpage to disable zooming out past the point where I stopped having the data rendered.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as your tshirt comment goes, what makes things like that "fashionable" by some people's standards is the fact that it attracts attention especially with all the 10 year old's friends who will want one too when the first person in their clique gets one. They will each tell their parents "Bobby has one so why can't I have one?" and of course if his parents are real parents they will say "because we're your parents and we say no". "Fashionable" sometimes equals "popular", "attention-grabbing", or "rebellious" to teenagers, hence the tshirt and for those parents who buy it for their children they don't complain about the sale of the shirt because they are liberal enough to think it is okay for their child. For those parents who don't buy it they wouldn't go into the store to begin with and therefore probably never end up knowing what the store is up to to even complain about the situation.
it takes an artist to create an initial set of code (both CLI and GUI) to make an application but it then takes an engineer to improve on it and make it perform as best as it can (both CLI and GUI).
Not all patches can be rolled back. Now whether the patches required to fix holes exploited by Sasser is something I don't know off hand but it's a possibility now and in the future.
The topics you list are things that require certain questions to be asked that most people don't want to think about because they are too engrossed in the ends and not enough in the means. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. A lot of people are willing to pay the price but many are asking should we pay the price.
I'd be happy to pay the initial cost to prove to people that the topics you list are either a waste of time (space exploration) and/or not ethically sound (cloning) as long as after the point has been made that they give up and not say "but if we have more time we can enhance our methods" or whatever the excuse may be. Scientists are too often caught up in the fantasy world they could create by some of these technologies and either don't care, don't worry, or don't even think about the repercussions. The means don't necessarily justify the end.
We've already violated the miracle of life and we want to do it even more by playing God by cloning things. We want to find life on other planets but we need to worry about the life on this planet first and not waste time and money on something that from my point of view doesn't exist. As far as quantum computing goes I think as with any technology we need to be careful of its power but I don't know of any ethical issues with it.
Doesn't a patent just mean that if someone else wants to implement it that they just have to pay a royalty? If the idea has already been created/developed and turned into a marketable product then hasn't the innovation for that idea come full circle so why would it matter that someone else can't do it? It's already been done by the time the 2nd person wants to do it. The only thing that doesn't happen is the 2nd person getting money for his idea. Don't we already argue that it isn't innovation anymore when a 2nd person wants to do something that has already been done (Microsoft)?
It's interesting how the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any. But let me be the first to say that the pro-evolutionists are obviously prejudiced against anything that might fly in the face of their grand ape-to-human theory. Do they care they are prejudiced and call anyone who isn't like them a crackpot? I doubt it because they think that they are never wrong so from their point of view they are perfect and nothing will tarnish that.
When they find the big power cord coming out of the sun, who'll be laughing then, huh?
What would be even better is if we followed the power cord for millions of light-years and came to the end and found out that it *wasn't even plugged in*.
UN inception 1942
WWII 1937-45
Korean 1950-53
Chinese Civil War 1945-49
Vietnam War 1965-73
Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
French Indochina 1945-54
French Algerian 1954-62
Afghanistan War 1980-89
First Sudanese Civil War 1956-72
Biafran War 1967-70
That is of course a listing of wars (not battles or conflicts) since the UN's inception. Doing research on previous wars for every 60year period prior to the UN would take a long time. As a shortcut you can read http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041305. html/
There have been more wars since the UN's inception than in any other period in history of similar length. Maybe they have "prevented" WW3 but they don't seem to have been capable of preventing other wars. I guess as long as it accomplishes the only goal it had then it must be the greatest organization Man has ever created despite all the other wars it hasn't been able to prevent.
If the technical merit were really there (many of the supposed IPv6 improvements have been backported to v4), my guess is a specific mandate wouldn't be necessary. Business would take care of it.
You mean like HDTV?
While we know that IPv6 technologies are deployed throughout the government we do not know specifically which ones, how many there are, or precisely where they are located..
Sounds like the typical US gov't to me.
Finally, you wouldn't use san for a little boy either. You'd call him kun or possibly , chan.
So *that's* where Jackie Chan got his last name.
Just because he recited the numbers one by one doesn't mean he memorized them one by one. People memorize patterns which is why it is easy to tell someone a phone number and pause after the 3rd and 5th numbers than to say 8001627111 all at once. He probably memorized various patterns in the value of pi and used those patterns to partly recite the individual numbers. You don't memorize 500 pages of poems character by character but word by word and since you know the format of the word you know the order of the components that make up the word.
Why do dogs have wet noses?
For the same reason humans have wet skin when they are hot, because dogs sweat through their noses and mouth.
If oranges are called oranges because of their color, why isn't a banana a "yellow?"
How do you know the color orange wasn't named after the fruit?
Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
no
Did Adam have a belly button?
no, he didn't need one, Eve didn't have one either.
Actually, evolution didn't create anything due to what exists being too complicated and having too many "chicken and egg" problems due to so many dependencies existing for evolution to have created everything. You can't have some of the components you listed and not others and still have something useful. It all has to be there and evolution couldn't have produced them all separately and then brought them all together to make something useful. Not to mention the odds of getting the right chemicals in the right proporations and storing the programming for all that and keeping it useable until all the other components were available are just beyong astronomical.
Answering lies with more lies is not answering them but merely prolonging and spreading your ignorance and biases.
A deity capable of creating an entire universe is obviously capable of deceiving you.
He has the power but no motive to deceive. On the other hand, we have some humans who think all humans came from apes who have a very strong motive for deceiving the general population in thinking that is true. Would you rather be deceived by a human who has natural biases and prejudices or by God who has no reason to deceive you to begin with? I know you will choose a human for the sheer fact you don't acknowledge God even exists but that just shows your ignorance for choosing something that you know is not right but choosing it anyway.
The show Mythbusters on DIscovery disproved this myth and showed that there really is an equal distribution between the toast landing butter side up as opposed to down. They did however figure out that by pushing on the toast when spreading the butter caused a cupped surface on the toast which could affect how it rotates in the air.
I hate to tell you this but the Christian religion existed in this country long before you or I were even here so why don't you get the fuck out since you are taking away what was already here and what everyone had no issues with. I'm not building anything because it already existed. Get your facts straight. The US was a better place when religion was allowed in schools and in the gov't and those who chose not to participate were not persecuted but the tables have turned around so much now that freedom of religion means that if you have a religion you are arrested or shutup (not much freedom in that).
You are damn right we are moving backwards. 100 years ago anyone and everyone could say "God" and "Jesus" in a school and practice their religion in public and now that gets you arrested and/or the ACLU on your ass. Today those same ideas are only allowed to be spoken of using the phrase "intelligent design" otherwise you are called crazy by the liberals who instead think we came from apes (who is calling who crazy again?) 100 years ago we didn't have homosexuality celebrated in the media and abortions were taboo(I did not say non-existent). Today we're not discussing how the dinosaurs attacked Noah's Ark. Only the one guy who wrote that book is discussing it so don't exaggerate so much that you look like an idiot spouting nonsense (and yes, it's too late for that). Why do I feel we're going backwards?
Your alternative theory will never make it to the textbooks due to the school systems considering it based on religion (demons->Satan). Oh wait, I should say, it's based on the Christian religion otherwise it would have been in a long time ago.
And yes I know your comment was sarcasm.
It's time for the senior centers to buy new 70" plasma HDTV-ready TVs. w00t grandma!! That will guarantee they get more visitors.
Why have we eschewed Gaming Goodness(TM) for violence and call it fun?
For the same reason that most TV shows nowadays include countless sexual connotations, take the name of God in vain countless times, and cartoon shows are able to go even further than the shows with real people in them because it's all in the name of "comedy". Point being that producers of media think they know what the majority want but they are way off base.
The excuse the media producers have is that you can always turn the channel or use lockout techniques http://controlyourtv.org/ so they can rationalize that it is quite all right to produce crap and broadcast it on national television. The ratings on TV, movie, and video games don't mean the same thing anymore either as a PG-13 movie can now contain nudity. It almost makes me wonder what is supposed to be in a rated R movie. I'm sure video games are changing too.
At work when I implemented maps using ESRI software, I specifically made limitations for how far out a user could zoom so that crazy things like this didn't happen. I implemented part of it in the xml file that ArcIMS used and another guy (developer) actually did the work in the javascript of the webpage to disable zooming out past the point where I stopped having the data rendered.
Without reading the article I'm going to ask, how did they know what they wanted yahoo to get them if they don't know what they would ask from Google?